Posts by Emily Johnson27

Alright folks, what’s the verdict on the quad? I'm seriously considering picking one up myself.

I have to say, I always thought Hoyt was quite the character.

I don't know, I've sat through a few of his movies... honestly, you need a massive amount of patience and nerves of steel just to get through one. And even when you finish, you're often left wondering what on earth actually happened (unless you decide to go read some analysis online). I think he really overdoes it with the cryptic nonsense... especially with Mulholland Drive. I mean, seriously? Do I really need to go out and buy some supplemental material just to grasp the plot? Give me a break. Most likely, the guy didn't even know what kind of mess he was filming while he was on set, and then had to scramble later to invent an explanation for it. As for Eraserhead, don't even get me started—it's incredibly overrated. Sure, there might be some clever bits in there, but the whole thing is just excessive.
Personally, I'm more of a Scorsese type. A man stabs another in the neck and that's that. That's life. It isn't about all this pretentious artistic expression over every little thing.

Jason Chavez32 said:I’ll say it again: I don't think it's polio. 😳

You know that old saying...

Jason Chavez32 said:That’s just not true. 😳

You might want to dig a little deeper on that one. One side of his facial muscles actually died off as a direct result of paralysis.

In case you weren't aware, the guy actually overcame polio, which explains his distinct look and the way he speaks. He also won an Oscar for Rocky, a project he personally wrote and edited for almost the entire series, excluding the very first installment. Personally, I don't think anyone makes better action movies than him; I’ve found nearly all of his work to be excellent. And don't even get me started on Cop Land—in my opinion, that's easily his finest hour.

First off, let’s get one thing straight: those things weren't even zombies in the traditional sense. They were just frenzied, hyper-aggressive freaks fueled by pure rage. Secondly, honestly, this movie holds up better than almost any other zombie flick out there—I’d even put it above Nightmare City or anything else from that era. Why? Because being chased by slow-moving corpses is one thing, but imagine being hunted by something like this—something acting like it's on a massive dose of speed and cocaine, driven by nothing but a primal urge to tear you apart. That is what real horror feels like. Finally, I find this film much more grounded and visceral than those "based on a true story" movies that try way too hard to pretend they're realistic.

I was actually thinking about painting my case in charcoal, maybe trying to pull off some kind of texture that mimics wood grain.

irongardener12 said:So, this is more or less how it should be. I’ll give 🙏, because at the end of the day, there are still people out there who actually know how to enjoy a movie without being weighed down by hang-ups or complexes. That person hit the nail on the head. We could all just close our eyes and claim that debating purpose or intent is pointless, but that's really it. Who are they to tell me which film should move me and which shouldn't? Some critic who wrote a few sentences in a newspaper? That’s just one person, operating within their own specific emotional spectrum. Someone else is just another individual with their own. I am another individual entirely. I don't react to situations, stimuli, or even tastes the same way someone else might. Everyone’s perspective is shaped by a unique set of factors. There is no objective yardstick that makes one opinion more valid than another. Every viewpoint is equally (un)important. Personally, I don't like chocolate, I don't care for pastries, and I don't have much of a sweet tooth. Why should anyone find that strange? If someone else loves it, they should enjoy it as much as they please...

I agree. I'd just add that while you certainly have your own take, if your job is to decide whether a film is worth ninety minutes of my time, you can't just dismiss a movie simply because it doesn't suit your personal taste or because you feel it isn't "intellectual" enough.

Give me a break. By dismissing 300 like that, you’re just proving you don't have a clue what makes a movie work. It's exactly this kind of critic that drives people away from cinema. Fortunately, not everyone here feels the need to talk trash constantly, otherwise, I wouldn't have even bothered watching it. Luckily, I did, and the film is excellent. It isn't chasing an Oscar, it doesn't care about historical accuracy, and there isn't some profound subtext hidden in the shadows—though I know the "intellectuals" and pretenders here are more than capable of projecting deep meaning onto absolute garbage, right? The acting was solid, the visual effects were top-tier, and the atmosphere was spot on. If I had one gripe, it's that the pacing felt a bit disjointed because the entire thing is essentially one massive battle, and the characters lack real depth. In my opinion, the film needed to hit at least the three-hour mark to let everything breathe and settle properly. All things considered, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. I'd still recommend it, though; I sat through an hour and a half and genuinely enjoyed myself.

Not everyone has the temperament to sit through something like Eraserhead or that kind of nonsense.

Bruce Lee from the Crow set, shot during filming👎

Charles Evans said:It’s honestly futile trying to explain to you people that what’s currently playing in theaters is garbage, pure and simple. I can't make it stick because you've all been so thoroughly brainwashed by mindless fluff that you've become immune to criticism. Just look at the comparison between Die Hard and this current fourth installment. They aren't even in the same universe. Those who actually understand cinema get what I'm saying without me needing to spell it out. As for those writing long-winded essays like the philosopher above—you're already too far gone. There's no saving you.

I think you might be dealing with some serious issues here, because commercial success doesn't automatically equal bad filmmaking. Why is it that for people like you, anything that isn't a low-budget indie flick is inherently flawed? Your logic just doesn't hold up. Fine, let's say Die Hard was a different beast entirely, but how on earth can you compare that to Pirate?! That's like arguing over why there were sequels to The Lord of the Rings (though if you ask me, the second one didn't even need to exist). If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would have voiced an opinion when Titanic swept 11 Oscars, or when Ghost Rider hit theaters.

These are just the kinds of movies meant to be mocked.

Look, I'm not exactly a Disney devotee or a sucker for every blockbuster that rolls out, but I have to admit, I genuinely enjoyed all three Pirate films, much like I did with Spider-Man III.

They stand as one of the most influential and legendary bands to ever grace a stage. Honestly, what more is there to say?